Jump to content

Talk:Cache-oblivious algorithm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Christian75 (talk | contribs) at 05:32, 22 October 2014 (Assessment: +Computer science (assisted)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconComputer science Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

"This can be implemented in practice with the Least Recently Used policy, which is shown to be within a factor of 2 of the offline optimal replacement strategy."

I wrote this, but in hindsight I think it's wrong. The Move-To-Front heuristic is 2-optimal, but I'm not sure if that's equivalent to LRU. Seems not ...

Vecter 23:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's basically correct. The following lemma is proved in the Frigo paper from the references:
Lemma 12. Consider an algorithm that causes Q'(n;Z,L) cache misses on a problem of size n using a (Z, L) ideal cache. Then, the same algorithm incurs Q(n;Z,L) ≤ 2Q'(z;Z/2,L) cache misses on a (Z,L) cache that uses LRU replacement.
Note that, technically, you need an LRU cache of twice the size of the optimal-replacement cache to simulate it within a factor of two.
—Steven G. Johnson 16:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cache-oblivious unrolled linked lists

"it is possible to design a variant of unrolled linked lists which is cache-oblivious" is false. The closest thing is the packed-memory array, but its append is slow. Normal and unrolled linked lists have constant time append. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.57.152 (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]